ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2012
Can extended photoactivation time of resin-based fissure sealer materials improve ultimate tensile strength and decrease water sorption/solubility?
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of an elastomeric urethane monomer on BisGMA-free resin composites containing different co-initiators.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of extended photoactivation time on ultimate tensile strength (UTS), water sorption (WS) and solubility (WSB) of resin-based materials used as fissure-sealants.
methodsA fissure-sealant (Fluroshield) and a flowable composite (Permaflo) polymerized for 20 and 60 seconds were tested. For UTS, 20 hourglass shaped samples were prepared representing two materials and two photoactivation time (n=5). After 24-h dry-storage, samples were tested in tension using a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min (UTS was calculated in MPa). For WS and WSB, 20 disks with 5 mm diameter and 1 mm height (n=5) were prepared and volumes were calculated (mm(3)). They were transferred to desiccators until a constant mass was obtained (m1) and were subsequently immersed in distilled water until no alteration in mass was detected (m2). Samples were reconditioned to constant mass in desiccators (m3). WS and WSB were determined using the equations m2-m3/V and m1-m3/V, respectively. Data were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test (P<.05).
resultsThere was no significant difference between materials or photoactivation times for the UTS and WS. Permaflo presented lower but negative WSB compared to Fluroshield.
conclusionsExtended photoactivation time did not improve the physical properties tested. Fluroshield presented physical properties that were similar to or better than Permaflo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23077420PMC3474555What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.